Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterkelly | Hacker News Reader

Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still murder, feel free to argue endlessly with others. But it's important to realize what you are then suggesting, and the ramifications.

War sucks. Innocent die.

Cue the pedantic replies.

>Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies.

Oh, the irony.

That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one.

Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military).

Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.

Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik...

I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.

Can you share the reason for why these weddings were targeted? I'm only wondering if the members might have been combatants or insurgents or terrorists? Or was their something about the wedding itself that made it a target?

What is the US policy on weddings?

An aid worker who was in Afghanistan in the 1980 told me that people often carried weapons to weddings and fired them in the air at some stage. The weapons were ceremonial. Not sure how reliable the following is, and it refers to Pakistan, but it is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan

Pretty sure it was drones. They just killed everyone, and then double-tapped to kill first responders.

> blah blah military in quotes

I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply.

As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?

> As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?

I think you missed coldtea's point. I suspect he pointed that out because he thought it would make a difference to you. e.g., "War sucks. Innocent people die." ... But we're not at war with Pakistan. So what? Drone strikes suck. Innocent people die?

Obligatory pedantic reply:

Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets.

Or:

Flying a plane into the pentagon.

I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.

I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.

Mob mentality.

Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.

"part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.

I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)

So it sounds like both of you advocate both US civilians being valid targets to kill, and also that the USA should be OK with killing foreign civilians yes?

It's a bit more nuanced. It depends on who we're at war with. If it's a nation, then sure, the nation and it's support system (workers, factories, etc.) should be valid targets. For non-state sponsored actors (terrorists, etc.), it becomes a lot more muddy. For example, in Pakistan, the general population isn't actively supporting terrorism and it's not advocated by the state so they are not valid targets. However, in areas where the Taliban have control and are supported and aided by the villages, the target list should expand.

At the end of the day, my original argument was that the delineation of military vs. civilian targets allows us to ignore our roles as citizens of a nation-state at war. I also think that many conflicts get dragged out and result in a lot more pain and suffering than if we had more flexibility.

I actually don't really understand why there's some type of "rule" of war. It's WAR, following rules seems to make something inherently savage into something we can feel okay about because there appears to be some type of logic that makes it less horrifying than it really is.

cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS

Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes.

I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates.

Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.

Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists).

Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.

Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.

If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.

> deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal.

How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants? No. Disregarding their safety? That's probably closer to the truth. But just because you are a non-combatant doesn't mean you aren't supporting combatants. And that's when tough decisions have to be made. It's a horrible choice that must be made.

As for WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_W...

Is it really a tough decision? A tough decision would be to put soldiers on the ground to do that. Killing someone in a far away country with very few chances that it will be reported looks like a rather easy solution.

You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".

Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war.

If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?

pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.

Few innocents died while killing terrorists. I see no harm in that. In any case that single terrorist would have killed lots of innocent. That innocent could be from USA, Russia, Israel, India. And at that time there will be hue and cry saying it is intelligence failure.

Innocents will die either by terrorists or may be by US drones.

terrorists do not have a good kill death ratio

Then you are not in the country where bomb blasts are very common. Their KD ratio is real good.

> It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger."

WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...

I'll admit I could have picked a better example, but I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.

> I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.

Which is why the user above responded. US justification for these strikes is because they are deemed "military targets," and often the intel behind the strikes themselves is extremely tenuous. While on not the scale of WWII firebombing the terrorist aspects of it cannot be ignored.

Much US government documentation on their strikes speaks of the psychological aspects of those under a drone's strike zone. They cast a terrorized population in terms of being "less prone to supporting Alqaeda Top Man #85032" or other nonsense that only addresses the social impact in the narrowest terms to ensure victory can be declared in some way by the author.

In the end the population below still feels terrorized by the presence of "justice from above" with no due recourse. This is completely aside from what those in the US government wish to call it.

Except that there is not war going on between Pakistan and the US. There should be no rationale to attack "military targets" on foreign soil because you have no authority there. Would the US tolerate Pakistan drones hovering above their schools and picking up targets at their will ?

For me, this is a key question. Another one -- would the US population allow drone strikes to take out terrorists within its own borders?

Because they weren't trying to kill that woman, they were trying to kill people they were allowed to kill by international law.

I'm not 100% sure if this is considered "collateral damage", but I think this explains the situation in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International...

Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.

are they so ill-trained that they can't even fire straight? So noob-ish that they are shooting people in the middle of a field mistaken as a car.

Do you believe the US has never intentionally targeted civilians?

Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho...

Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin...

Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been found indulging in the same acts - rapes, killings, indiscriminate bombings, torture - that rampaging armies do.

Example's one and two aren't the US. They are individuals. So unless you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Germany or Japan are intentionally targeting civilians, it doesn't hold water.

Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing.

Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.

A country is an abstract concept. On the battlefield, it is represented by its soldiers in uniform. There is no Uncle Sam in a uniform who represents the "US" collectively.

If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".

Exactly. Which is why he is asking for evidence that there is a currently US military policy in place that states soldiers are to intentionally target civilians in the "war on terror".

Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.

This is what I'm asking for. Thanks.

Example 2 shows soldiers following the rules of engagement at the time. They even radioed in to get an (admittedly cursory) O.K. to shoot the people. They did what they were told to do, and the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.

> the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.

Yes. What you are leaving out is the rest of the story. Let's go to a neutral source:

Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journa...

"It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.

WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.

"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.

The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape." [Emphasis mine]

Now, going to the second link, we read the description of the video as such:

"5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff." [Emphasis mine]

Was the killing done without judgement? Without consideration? They weren't just firing on civilians. They were firing on what they could make out as militants.

You can argue that the rules of engagement are wrong. That we can't just rely on the eyes on the ground to give us reports. That someone saying they see a weapon is not a strong enough reason for allowing them to open fire. You can argue that we have to wait until people are fired upon, or die, before reacting. But your comment just spreads misinformation.

>Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians?

Of course. It's not like it's some new practice either...

I don't think the government intentionally target civilians, but I do think they don't care if they target civilians unless it causes a too big PR problem.

And I don't think they've cared much since at least the firebombing of Japan and Germany towards the end of WWII, when it became blatantly clear that they could get away with indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians without consequences at home.

Because state actors can't be terrorists.

Now it could be a war crime, and indeed arguably we tried Milosevic for less.

> Because state actors can't be terrorists.

Can I take it you're unaware that the word was coined to describe a state?

The US military gets to define what is and what isn't murder. Killing anyone in a poor country who isn't a child or too old to fire a machine gun is by definition never murder according to America.

The people killed are pretty brown.

Classed by whom?

I certainly define it this way. Many others do, too.

because people of that region are worth far less. So less that they can't even classify this as a murder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com